Culture issues with CK3

[Cassilda]

Cisalpine as an Italian culture in my opinion has really little sense. Cisalpine populations were essentially Gauls, that were assimilated in the Roman population long before CKIII timeline (the province was also extensively colonized by Italic settlers to the point that Augustus annexed it to "Italy proper" during his rule, also, large numbers of Celts were expelled in the late republic). Using the term "Cisalpine" for northern Italians its like calling Frenchmen "Gauls" or "Celts", it has no sense, even in a game.
If really it's needed to split Italians in multiple groups, northerners should be divided into "Venetians" (people living in "Roman proper" areas that weren't subject to Lombard influence) and "Lombards" (Italians descendants of those subject to Lombard rulers). Lombards in the south then should be renamed to Langobards as pointed in previous post if they are to stay "Germanic" (that, in the CKIII time it's not really correct, as the Lombards at the time were still ruling Salerno and Benevento, but they were already latinized).
Anyway, I believe that Cisalpine, especially as a melting pot between Gaulish and Latin cultures is completely wrong; if northern Italian culture is to be intended as a meting pot, it should be only between Romans and Lombards/Goths (the remnants of latter merged with the Lombards after the Lombard conquest).

 

[treb]

So guys, I saw there is a lot of people who has issue with CK3 cultures, what is in, what isn't in the game and where some cultures are/should be. So, why not make a single thread where we express our opinions clearly so that maybe Devs can see it and have an idea without have to browse a lot of threads whom get inevitably buried after some hours/days? Only, let's make it civil, no fighting, no salty posting. Let's only state what we think should get reviewed, if you can post some evidence, it's ok, but don't fight! I could edit OP post to add the issue.

Issues:
No Albanian culture

I can way in on this, Albanian has a very complicated history most of it unrecorded, its even still debated weather Albanian is a surviving branch of Illyrian, Dacian or Thracian, indeed Albanians just seem to pop up in Albania some time in the 11th century. There is debatable evidence the language originated in a alpine setting then migrated to a coastal area, and their language is undocumented up until 15th century. Their first mention in history as a distinct ethnicity is from the Byzantines, and it seems far fetched that the Byzantines would have overlooked a unique ethnicity that from 300 to 1000 ad were direct subjects or a people on their boarder. To put it simply before around 1070 ish we have no idea where the ancestors of what would become the Albanians were.

 

[Woifee]

Distinsion between Swabian and Bavarian culture in 867 anachronistic (better united as Suebi/Alemannic);

Whats's the reasoning behind that?

 

[cybrxkhan]

I can way in on this, Albanian has a very complicated history most of it unrecorded, its even still debated weather Albanian is a surviving branch of Illyrian, Dacian or Thracian, indeed Albanians just seem to pop up in Albania some time in the 11th century. There is debatable evidence the language originated in a alpine setting then migrated to a coastal area, and their language is undocumented up until 15th century. Their first mention in history as a distinct ethnicity is from the Byzantines, and it seems far fetched that the Byzantines would have overlooked a unique ethnicity that from 300 to 1000 ad were direct subjects or a people on their boarder. To put it simply before around 1070 ish we have no idea where the ancestors of what would become the Albanians were.

If I recall, the CK2 devs mentioned in one of the post-Holy Fury dev diaries that they were aware of the oddity of Arberian/Albanian magically popping up in the later start dates but being forever conspicuously absent if you had one of the earlier start dates. They mentioned they were thinking of potential ways to handle it, but never committed to anything (and never will since CK2 is pretty much complete).

I think it's reasonable to have the Albanians/Arberians appear on the map at the 1066 start date. As for the 867 start date, one option would be to just have them spontaneously appear in the region after, say, 1000 CE via an event, if the region is inhabited by a Byzantine or South Slavic culture. I suppose the devs could put in, say, an Illyrian culture that turns into Albanian, like how Visigothic turns into Andalusian or Castillan or what not, but that would raise the controversy of whether the precursor culture should be Illyrian, Dacian, or Thracian, or if such a precursor culture was even still around at the time as you say.

I suppose the vagueness of it all was why the devs decided to just leave the Albanians of CK2 as they are currently implemented.

 

[Karlingid]

Whats's the reasoning behind that?

Burials in Swabia and Bavaria are extremely similar in character, there is no functional linguistic gap at all between them in this period, and even today it is often difficult to properly distinguish aspects of Swabian and Bavarian culture as distinct from one another rather than part of a broader Alemannic spectrum including other Alpine Germans such as the Austrians and Swiss. Swabian culture and identity did not really take on a truly distinct form from its neighbors until the Renaissance, or optimistically within the last few decades of the game. The geographic boundary between Swabia and Bavaria was not particularly strong, and little if any functional difference between Swabians and Bavarians existed for most of the middle ages beyond an occasional and incomplete political distinction. The use of the terms "Suebi" and "Alemanni" are because these terms were popularly used throughout the middle ages to refer to the region as either Suebia (Swabia) or Alemannia, and the people therein accordingly.

 

[Undead Martyr]

I would love if culture was more dynamic. Like if Italian balkanized over the period while French and German melded into the tow lain north/south groups.

 

[LMaquiel]

I wait for the crimean goths, a unique eastern germanic culture that allows a very interesting game.

I have a personal name list for this culture.

 

[Woifee]

Burials in Swabia and Bavaria are extremely similar in character, there is no functional linguistic gap at all between them in this period, and even today it is often difficult to properly distinguish aspects of Swabian and Bavarian culture as distinct from one another rather than part of a broader Alemannic spectrum including other Alpine Germans such as the Austrians and Swiss. Swabian culture and identity did not really take on a truly distinct form from its neighbors until the Renaissance, or optimistically within the last few decades of the game. The geographic boundary between Swabia and Bavaria was not particularly strong, and little if any functional difference between Swabians and Bavarians existed for most of the middle ages beyond an occasional and incomplete political distinction. The use of the terms "Suebi" and "Alemanni" are because these terms were popularly used throughout the middle ages to refer to the region as either Suebia (Swabia) or Alemannia, and the people therein accordingly.

do you have literature on that?

 

[Reavici]

Which culture is dominant in Tbilisi?

Maybe this should be Laz culture?
View attachment 579467
The western province could be Greek, I'm not sure, but it seems that the eastern most portion of Chaldea was Laz.

Westernmost province, was actually called as Chalybia by Greeks and it was rather populated by local tribes known as Chalybes, related to Laz but they are not exatly Lazs. Chalybes, Chaldians (central region) and Tzanis (today known as Lazs) are related tribes. Chalibia was even renamed as Djanik/Canik (aka land of Tzanis) by Turks as soon as they conquered this areal. All major cities in this area were populated by Greeks, while rural area was rather populated by natives, who were in fact majority. It is really interesting that both local greeks as well as byzantine greeks reffered trebizondine emperor as prince of Lazis, while Turks denoted the empire as Djanik/Tzanik.

 

[Vias]

On a different note, I'm guessing that Szekely culture hasn't been added, so I'd have an idea for that as well. Were it to be implemented, it could be done by either event or by decision for a march vassal of the Kingdom of Hungary if he is of Hungarian culture and his primary title has existed for some time, with the text talking about how life on the frontiers has made the people and/or the character culturally drift apart from the rest of the Hungarians.

View attachment 579967
I think Munda people should be present in the highlands of Orissa.

There shouldn't be any Khitan on the present map. Those areas were subjugated by the Great Liao, but Khitan nomads mostly roamed in the areas East of what you see on the map.

There were no Khitans in significant numbers west of the garrison town of Kedun, which was somewhere along the Orkhon River if memory serves correctly. In any case, the province culture would better represent the Mongol nomads there - as Kedun was just a garrison.

I tried to address these things in the thread posted by @dark-mysterio but I'd like to ping the post also here.
While I understand that people may want some more diversity in Arabia, I don't think it is very necessary and I also don't think it would be good for gameplay... although, as you can see in my answer below, I think that having Omani culture could be nice, but not necessary:

Baranis/Butr (Berber culture divided) but what about the bedouin one (northern Arabian "Adnanite"/southern Arabian "qahtani" divide ?) ?

hello everyone in this video (which i find in this thread (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/new-ck3-pictures-from-steam-rockpapershotgun-and-gamewatcher.1390086/page-2) we can see starting at 2:18 than the Berbers culture was...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

I can way in on this, Albanian has a very complicated history most of it unrecorded, its even still debated weather Albanian is a surviving branch of Illyrian, Dacian or Thracian, indeed Albanians just seem to pop up in Albania some time in the 11th century. There is debatable evidence the language originated in a alpine setting then migrated to a coastal area, and their language is undocumented up until 15th century. Their first mention in history as a distinct ethnicity is from the Byzantines, and it seems far fetched that the Byzantines would have overlooked a unique ethnicity that from 300 to 1000 ad were direct subjects or a people on their boarder. To put it simply before around 1070 ish we have no idea where the ancestors of what would become the Albanians were.

Thanks guys, adding to the OP!

Edited the Hungarian-Slovak 1066 cultural borders post to be more clear and with better phrasing, because it is referenced to in the OP.

Well done

Cisalpine as an Italian culture in my opinion has really little sense. Cisalpine populations were essentially Gauls, that were assimilated in the Roman population long before CKIII timeline (the province was also extensively colonized by Italic settlers to the point that Augustus annexed it to "Italy proper" during his rule, also, large numbers of Celts were expelled in the late republic). Using the term "Cisalpine" for northern Italians its like calling Frenchmen "Gauls" or "Celts", it has no sense, even in a game.
If really it's needed to split Italians in multiple groups, northerners should be divided into "Venetians" (people living in "Roman proper" areas that weren't subject to Lombard influence) and "Lombards" (Italians descendants of those subject to Lombard rulers). Lombards in the south then should be renamed to Langobards as pointed in previous post if they are to stay "Germanic" (that, in the CKIII time it's not really correct, as the Lombards at the time were still ruling Salerno and Benevento, but they were already latinized).
Anyway, I believe that Cisalpine, especially as a melting pot between Gaulish and Latin cultures is completely wrong; if northern Italian culture is to be intended as a meting pot, it should be only between Romans and Lombards/Goths (the remnants of latter merged with the Lombards after the Lombard conquest).

I totally agree, the more I think about "cisalpine culture" the more I think is wrong. At least they should add Venetian culture.

 

[Vias]

I amassed some sources for the Romani migrations and names/titles in a HIP subforum thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/romani-aka-gypsy-culture-addition.1089046/

Obviously the name list was very difficult, mostly sourced from prof. Ctibor Nečas's works in the Czech language, slightly improvised to increase the volume.

Ok, adding to the OP. Thank you

 

[Reavici]

This post might have not connection with this thread, but I got some suggestions and hope it can be reconsidered. As for Georgian I am really happy with all the changes concerning to Caucasus and Anatolia in general, lots of jobs were done, however there are still some minor details concerning to Georgia that could be improved a little bit.

Western Georgia:
1) Western Georgia misses province Imereti, with capital at Kutaisi, which could serve as capital of kingdom of Abkhazia and Georgia. If western Georgia has too much regions, then Guria can be merged with Imereti for gameplay purposes. Guria is only recorded in chronicles after 12th century and it was in fact frontier province between Georgia and Byzantine/Trebizond. According to historians Guria was split off from Odishi/Mingrelia. Guria could at some point also be associated with Theme of Greater Lazia(?). This can be reason why rulers of Guria (Gurielis) were claimed to be descedant of Komnenos dynasty and at some point also recognized their authority, even though de facto they were under Imeretian/Georgian rule.

2) Argveti was one of the important duchy in western Georgia, created within the kingdom of Abkhazia. Capital at Chikha, or Sorapanis. The province is place of origin of Liparitid family (themselves descedant of Mamikonians), which gave birth to several noble families in Georgia, such as Kakhaberidze, in western Georgia and Orbeli, in eastern Georgia, in Armenia they are known as Orbeliani. Argveti was place where princes of Abkhazian royal dynasty exercised their power before assuming full ruling power as a king. It was also ruled by Kakhaberidze and Amanelisdze family respectively. Argveti survived until 13th century and then was abolished by king of Imereti. However Kakhaberidze still managed to control Racha.

Small region Abkhazia which was first controlled by Anchabadze (Chachasdze), then was replaced by Shervashidze by David the Builder, the latter takes its origin from Shirvanshahs or Kasranid dynasty from Shirvan.

Western Georgia was equally dominanted by Kakhaberidze and Vardanisdze family for a long time. Vardanisdze (before known as Marushiani) gave birth to several major noble families in Georgia, especially in Odishi/Mingrelia (Dadiani), Guria (Gurieli) and Svaneti.

South Georgia:
Klarjeti or Cholarzene capital at Artanuji. Was one of the important city of medieval Anatolia between 9th to 11th centuries (see De Administrando Imperio). The province was at first controlled by Guaramids. Region is place of origin of Georgian Bagratids and one of it's cadet branch. One of the most important economical, poltical and religious center of medieval Georgia. Claimed by Byzantine rulers, but never conquered by them (except one incident). Hopefully Artanuji can be made as coastal city, since it lays near Coruh river which was navigable until recently.

Mesheti or Meschia/Moschia (also includes Javakheti as well), capital at Odzrkhe. Originally part of Guaramid holdings, then inherited by Georgian Bagratids and then by royal/Kartlian line Bagratids, who managed to unite Georgia.

Tao, probably Taochia in Greek? also known as Tayk by Armenians. Capital at Oltisi. Bagratid holding, many of its rulers were granted title of Courapalates and Magistres (most notable member David III of Tao), culturally and religiously advanced (most valuable cathedrals are located there: Oshki, Bana, Ishkhani). well fortified. Had strongest military power compared to other Bagratid holdings.

Those three provinces should be redistributed to following personalities in accordance to this chart.

Until Seljuk invasions south Georgia used to be most advanced region. It flourished again during Queen Tamar, but soon afterwards lost its importance.

Other details:
Eastern Georgia is almost as accurate as it could be. I just de-jure transferred the province Kartli to eastern Georgian duchy, since it was coreland of central Georgia, claimed by Abkhazians, Southern Georgians, Armenians, Arab Emirs, Khazars and Eastern Georgians as well. Georgian dynasts tried to conquer Kartli province to legitimate their rule over whole Georgia.

added minor mountains between South and western Georgia to represent complicated terrain of the region, which historically played significiant role in preserving western Georgia from muslim invaders.

 

[Samitte]

South Georgia:
Klarjeti, capital at Artanuji. One of the important city of medieval Anatolia (see De Administrando Imperio). The provice is place of origin of Georgian Bagratids and one of the it's cadet branch. religious, economical and religious center of medieval Georgia. Claimed by Byzantine rulers, but never conquered by them (except one incident). Artanuji can be made as coastal city, since it lays along Coruh river which was navigable until recently. Turkish authorities constructed lots of dams, which made this river inaccessible to boats.

I'm going to disagree hard here and say Artanuji can absolutely not be made a coastal city, since it lies on the other side of a mountain range inside a valley. Inbetween Artanuji and the coast there are Artvini, Borchka, and then the actual coastal towns of Apsaros/Gonio, Khupati, and Batumi.

Mesheti (includes Javakheti as well), capital at Odzrkhe. Originally part of Guaramid holdings, then inherited by Georgian Bagratids and then by royal/Kartlian line Bagratids, who managed to unite Georgia.

Wouldn't Meshkheti be the proper spelling?

Eastern Georgia is almost as accurate as it could be. I just de-jure transferred the province Kartli to eastern Georgian duchy, since it was coreland of central Georgia, claimed by Abkhazians, Southern Georgians, Armenians, Arab Emirs, Khazars and Eastern Georgians as well. Georgian dynasts tried to conquer Kartli province to legitimate their rule over whole Georgia.

Don't forget the Caucasian Albanians!

 

[Reavici]

I'm going to disagree hard here and say Artanuji can absolutely not be made a coastal city, since it lies on the other side of a mountain range inside a valley. Inbetween Artanuji and the coast there are Artvini, Borchka, and then the actual coastal towns of Apsaros/Gonio, Khupati, and Batumi.



Wouldn't Meshkheti be the proper spelling?



Don't forget the Caucasian Albanians!

In reallity Aranuji was not coastal city sure, but the river where the town lays was navigable. Coruh river used to be navigable, same goes to Rioni river btw. Apsaros, Gonio and Batumi were serving as ports for Artanuji. The trade route through Artanuji was connecting Tbilisi, Ani, Dvin and other cities of Caucasus and Middle east to Trebizond through black sea. Quote from DOA: The city of Ardanoutzin (Άρδανούτζη, Ardanuç/Artanuji) is very strongly defended, and has moreover a considerable suburban area like a provincial city, and the commerce of Trapezus and of Iberia and of Abasgia (Άβασγία) and from the whole country of Armenia and Syria comes to it, and it has an enormous customs revenue from this commerce.

Meskheti is correct form indeed.

And I don't understand why you mentioned Caucasian Albanians, how are they related to this topic?

 

[Samitte]

And I don't understand why you mentioned Caucasian Albanians, how are they related to this topic?

You listed most of the players in the region, but they were missing from the list.

 

[4matic]

I suspect the fractured german cultures are going to make culture conversion in pomerania very difficult. I.e. a saxon Duke not being able to convert because of a franconian/swabian/Bavarian emporer

 

[.Me]

Cisalpine as an Italian culture in my opinion has really little sense. Cisalpine populations were essentially Gauls, that were assimilated in the Roman population long before CKIII timeline (the province was also extensively colonized by Italic settlers to the point that Augustus annexed it to "Italy proper" during his rule, also, large numbers of Celts were expelled in the late republic). Using the term "Cisalpine" for northern Italians its like calling Frenchmen "Gauls" or "Celts", it has no sense, even in a game.
If really it's needed to split Italians in multiple groups, northerners should be divided into "Venetians" (people living in "Roman proper" areas that weren't subject to Lombard influence) and "Lombards" (Italians descendants of those subject to Lombard rulers). Lombards in the south then should be renamed to Langobards as pointed in previous post if they are to stay "Germanic" (that, in the CKIII time it's not really correct, as the Lombards at the time were still ruling Salerno and Benevento, but they were already latinized).
Anyway, I believe that Cisalpine, especially as a melting pot between Gaulish and Latin cultures is completely wrong; if northern Italian culture is to be intended as a meting pot, it should be only between Romans and Lombards/Goths (the remnants of latter merged with the Lombards after the Lombard conquest).

I agree that there's little sense to have a Cisalpine culture into the game but there's no reason at all to keep Langobards as a distinct Germanic culture into the south, or to keep them as a distinct culture at all, it's wrong exactly like having a Cisalpine culture imo.
Italian cultures (not dialects) south of the Rubicon, including Tuscany, are well similar to each other so that into the game they can just be represented as a single culture, I proposed "Italic" because having Italic and Lombard and Venetian together sounds less wrong than having them together with Italian.
Otherwise, the division can become too senseless in-depth, creating a different culture for every Italian dialect (Tuscan, Roman, Umbrian...) would mean to have no Italians at all, to make that sound correct you will need to translate every Italian name into their own dialectal correspondent like for example the name "Giacomo" in Venetian will be "Xacomo", to put the correct names into the correct geographical areas in which those names are used in Italy and so on. For example a Lombard named "Gennaro" sound's like a Russian named Heinrich, to an Italian, if you know what I mean.
To avoid this mess, it's better to just divide into Lombard, Venetian, Italic, and then a melting pot to create a Sicilian culture to the south.

 

[Woifee]

I suspect the fractured german cultures are going to make culture conversion in pomerania very difficult. I.e. a saxon Duke not being able to convert because of a franconian/swabian/Bavarian emporer

Do we already know how culture conversion works?

 

[Duarte]

Do we already know how culture conversion works?

the devs mentioned it's now a council action, akin to claim fabrication, how this interacts with vassals and lieges with different cultures is unknown

 

[Vias]

View attachment 580315

This post might have not connection with this thread, but I got some suggestions and hope it can be reconsidered. As for Georgian I am really happy with all the changes concerning to Caucasus and Anatolia in general, lots of jobs were done, however there are still some minor details concerning to Georgia that could be improved a little bit.

Western Georgia, i.e. Abkhazia misses province Imereti, with capital at Kutaisi, which could serve as capital of kingdom of Abkhazia and Georgia.

Argveti was one of the important duchy in western Georgia, created within kingdom of Abkhazia. The province is place of origin of Liparitid family and it was place where princes of royal dynasty exercised their power before assuming full ruling power as a king. Argveti survived until 13th century and then was abolished by king of Imereti.

South Georgia:
Klarjeti, capital at Artanuji. One of the important city of medieval Anatolia (see De Administrando Imperio). The provice is place of origin of Georgian Bagratids and one of the it's cadet branch. religious, economical and religious center of medieval Georgia. Claimed by Byzantine rulers, but never conquered by them (except one incident). Artanuji can be made as coastal city, since it lays along Coruh river which was navigable until recently. Turkish authorities constructed lots of dams, which made this river inaccessible to boats.

Mesheti (includes Javakheti as well), capital at Odzrkhe. Originally part of Guaramid holdings, then inherited by Georgian Bagratids and then by royal/Kartlian line Bagratids, who managed to unite Georgia.

Tao. capital at Bana or Oltisi. Bagratid holding, many of its rulers were granted title of Courapalates and Magistres (most notable member David III of Tao), culturally and religiously advanced (most valuable cathedrals are located here: Oshki, Bana, Ishkhani). well fortified. Had strongest military power compared to other Bagratid holdings.

Eastern Georgia is almost as accurate as it could be. I just de-jure transferred the province Kartli to eastern Georgian duchy, since it was coreland of central Georgia, claimed by Abkhazians, Southern Georgians, Armenians, Arab Emirs, Khazars and Eastern Georgians as well. Georgian dynasts tried to conquer Kartli province to legitimate their rule over whole Georgia.

added minor mountains between South and western Georgia to represent complicated terrain of the region, which historically played significiant role in preserving western Georgia from muslim invaders.

Added to OP post